The old adage that one lie leads to another is never more apparent than when modern American public officials deal with issues arising from sexual immorality. Posted on 03/27/2013 6:14:19 PM PDT by Kaslin
The old adage that one lie leads to another is never more apparent than when modern American public officials deal with issues arising from sexual immorality.
President Bill Clinton, for example, started a chain of lies when he decided to have an adulterous relationship with a White House intern.
Clinton first lied to his wife, then to a federal court, then to the American people.
Nor could Clinton's lies, delivered as president, be his lies alone. His partisans in Congress either had to abandon him or add another link to the chain of lies by declaring that perjury and obstruction of justice in a federal court, so long as they were intended to cover up presidential adultery with a White House intern, were not the sort of high crimes and misdemeanors that ought to be considered impeachable offenses under the Constitution of the United States.
Yet, as corrosive as Clinton's perjury was to the public understanding of right and wrong and true liberty, it was not as corrosive as the left's current crusade to get the Supreme Court to declare same-sex marriage a "right."
Clinton's perjury was at least predicated on the assumption that people not only would see his behavior with a White House intern as a transgression against marriage, but also that they ought to do so.
If they are to succeed in their cause, those who now claim that same-sex marriage is a "right" must eradicate from American law and society the true -- and only sustainable -- rationale for any right at all.
That, of course, is that rights are immutable things that come from God -- that they are part of the natural moral law that all men and all nations have an inescapable duty to obey.
The Founding Fathers of this nation not only believed in the natural law created by God, but insisted it was the justification for the United States becoming a nation.
The "Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them," they said, "to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station" of an independent state.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident," they said, "that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
Now, did Nature's God, who endowed all men with unalienable rights, endow two people of the same sex with a "right" to marry one another? If so, why did God create men and women?
Why did He create a system of human reproduction that rests on mothers and fathers and not mothers and mothers or fathers and fathers?
In truth, the advocates arguing to the Supreme Court that five or more justices should band together and declare a "right" to same-sex marriage are not arguing that there is a God-given right to such a thing. Indeed, the more candid among them see morality itself as an obstacle to their desired end.
In the case challenging the constitutionality of California's marriage amendment, which came before the Supreme Court on Tuesday, U.S. Solicitor General Donald Verrilli argued in the Obama administration's amicus brief that it is illegitimate for the government to base a policy on "a moral judgment" -- in this case, a moral judgment about homosexual behavior.
"Protecting children from being taught about same-sex marriage is not a permissible interest insofar as it rests on a moral judgment about gay and lesbian ... intimate relationships," he says.
But it is going to be either one way or the other: The government either will teach children about same-sex "intimate relationships" or it will not. And if the government does teach children about same-sex "intimate relationships," it will either teach them that these relationships are right or they are wrong.
The advocates of same-sex marriage want the government to teach children that same-sex "intimate relationships" are not only right, but a "right."
To do that, they must reject the natural law, the Old Testament, the New Testament and more than 2,000 years of Western tradition. They must teach that the God of Genesis, who created all things, was wrong about marriage. They must teach that Jesus Christ was wrong about marriage.
And they must teach that the Declaration of Independence was wrong when it insisted our rights come from our Creator.
So, if God did not give Americans a right to same-sex marriage, who did? Its advocates are hoping it will be Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and ...
A state that no longer recognizes that it is subservient to the Laws of Nature and Nature's God will also no longer recognize the God-given rights of individuals. In such a state, there will only be those privileges the powerful decide to grant us -- until they decide to take them away.
This entire “debate” about same sex marriage in the US Senate and the Supreme Court of the US is a mockery of the founding principles. Just another step by the Marxists towards total destruction of America.
Black-robed Coven———great descriptions of those evil, ugly Marxist people.
They are declaring that "SODOMY" still a crime is many states and a crime against nature is OK by them. One of these days God is really gonna get pi$$ed!
Christianity certainly condemns same-sex marriage like it condemns all sin. However, one doesn’t have to rely on religious arguments to point out that only a man and woman can engage in sexual intercourse. Homosexuals cannot even consummate a marriage. It’s simply not physically possible. The anus is not a vagina, and that applies to heterosexual sodomy as well as the homosexual variety. Homosexuals do not engage in intercourse. They participate in mutual masturbation.
Yes-—if they get Homosexual “marriage” to be “Just Law”——there is no such thing as “Justice” in America anymore. Justice is a Virtue and sodomy is a Vice.
That is how Marxists work-—they destroy the meaning of words so they can control the perceptions.
They are flipping Good and Evil-—and it is for the conditioning and brainwashing of little children so they will believe Up is Down and any stupid thing Marxists tell them-—good little ACORN zombies who follow orders—because they will not be able to use Reason.
Reason will be non-existent in America if such absurd “Rights” gets codified.
If this breaks bad, you can 100% expect that polygamists and polyandeists will be running to the courthouse to file for the same “rights.” Because marriage has no meaning at all, other than “love.” And incest is automatically OK, since there can be no logical reason to preclude it.
There is no role for a Father and Mother, just folk.
Just cannot believe the court is doing this. We are being ridiculed at these hearings as as country has been taken over by these Marxists. This perversion is not normal, and no amount of legislation will make it so. Tolerance and acceptance are two entirely different things. They can do what they like in their own lives and homes.
I should add that marriage simply acknowledges the physical reality of things. It wasn’t thought up as a means to deny homosexuals their rights. We cannot even refer to what the homosexuals want without calling it “same-sex” marriage, because the term “marriage” itself means husband and wife, male and female—not two incompatible members of the same sex who cannot procreate or even engage in true sexual union.
Personal preference doesn’t even come into this. People can have all sorts of sexual preferences that aren’t protected by law.
Another great article on this. It’s absolutely correct. Seeing a right to marry someone of the same gender is a rejection of the ‘rights come from God’ principle. Our rights officially will come from government and the judiciary.
I actually should have quoted that or at least paraphrased it. It is a description I heard on a John Hagee show years ago. It fits. I go with it.
I thought we were all born with our rights from God.
This whole things smells of the end of the Roman Empire.
These athesists will have their way with public definitions, but we know what a marriage is...as does He. We all have to answer!
so what next? will the left demand the right for liberals to marry their pets or lawn trees?
I’ll fight. Dunno whether anyone will fight with me.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.